approve_write

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the human-in-the-loop gate, the one-time token, and the SECURITY_WRITE_APPROVAL environment condition. It stops short of describing what happens on token expiry or failure, hence not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite/environment gate follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the risk profile, the description supplies the essential gate conditions and token origin. It could say more about failure modes (invalid/expired token) but is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (token, environment) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces that the token originates from submit_jcl, adding marginal value beyond the existing field description. Baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Approve and execute a pending JCL submission') and adds the human-in-the-loop qualifier that distinguishes it from submit_jcl and the many read-oriented siblings. An agent can separate it from submit_jcl without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the prerequisite ('Requires the one-time token from submit_jcl') and the activation condition ('active only when SECURITY_WRITE_APPROVAL=true'). This routes the agent to submit_jcl first and tells it when this tool is available at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.